Influences of counting methods on country rankings: a perspective from patent analysis

The counting of patents and citations is commonly used to evaluate technological innovation and its impact. However, in an age of increasing international collaboration, the counting of international collaboration patents has become a methodological issue. This study compared country rankings using four different counting methods (i.e. whole counting, straight counting, whole-normalized counting, complete-normalized counting) in patent, citation and citation-patent ratio (CP ratio) counts. It also observed inflation depending on the method used. The counting was based on the complete 1992–2011 patent and citation data issued by United States Patent and Trademark Office. The results show that counting methods have only minor effects on country rankings in patent count, citation count and CP ratio count. All four counting methods yield reliable country ranks in technology innovation capability and impact. While the influences of counting methods vary between patent count, citation count and CP ratio count, counting methods may exert slightly greater effects on CP ratio counts than on patent and citation counts. As for the inflation, the distributions of higher and lower inflation by the four counting methods are different in patent, citation and CP ratio counts.

[1]  Olle Persson.  All author citations versus first author citations , 2004, Scientometrics.

[2]  Peder Olesen Larsen,et al.  Counting methods are decisive for rankings based on publication and citation studies , 2005, Scientometrics.

[3]  Leo Egghe,et al.  Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries: Consequences for evaluation studies , 2000, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[4]  Mu-Hsuan Huang,et al.  A Comparison of Three Major Academic Rankings for World Universities: From a Research Evaluation Perspective , 2011 .

[5]  Richard S. J. Tol,et al.  Credit where credit’s due: accounting for co-authorship in citation counts , 2011, Scientometrics.

[6]  Vesna Olui,et al.  DUAL APPROACH TO MULTIPLE AUTHORSHIP IN THE STUDY OF COLLABORATION/SCIENTIFIC OUTPUT RELATIONSHIP , 1986 .

[7]  P. Thompson,et al.  Patent Citations and the Geography of Knowledge Spillovers: A Reassessment , 2005 .

[8]  Peder Olesen Larsen,et al.  Publication, cooperation and productivity measures in scientific research , 2007, Scientometrics.

[9]  Ulrich Schmoch,et al.  Opening the Black Box , 2004 .

[10]  Peder Olesen Larsen,et al.  Comparisons of results of publication counting using different methods , 2008, Scientometrics.

[11]  L. G. Soete,et al.  The use of foreign patenting as an internationally comparable science and technology output indicator , 2005, Scientometrics.

[12]  曹亞倫.  Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan Bylaws , 2010 .

[13]  魏屹东,et al.  Scientometrics , 2018, Encyclopedia of Big Data.

[14]  Nian Cai Liu,et al.  The Academic Ranking of World Universities. , 2005 .

[15]  Manuel Trajtenberg.  Innovation in Israel 1968-97: a Comparative Analysis Using Patent Data , 1999 .

[16]  Hui Fang,et al.  Fairly sharing the credit of multi-authored papers and its application in the modification of h-index and g-index , 2011, Scientometrics.

[17]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research , 2005 .

[18]  Mu-Hsuan Huang,et al.  Counting methods, country rank changes, and counting inflation in the assessment of national research productivity and impact , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[19]  Vesna Oluic-Vukovic,et al.  Distribution of scientific productivity: Ambiguities in the assignment of author rank , 2005, Scientometrics.

[20]  Sujit Bhattacharya,et al.  Mapping inventive activity and technological change through patent analysis: A case study of India and China , 2004, Scientometrics.

[21]  Francis Narin,et al.  Globalization of Research, Scholarly Information, and Patents–Ten Year Trends , 1991 .